Fwd: [council] GNSO letter to the ICANN Boardregarding Public Participation

[Adam Peake]

Mary, as far as this statement is concerned, I 
don't think it matters too much if everything 
isn't complete at this time.  But, perhaps you 
could ask the council if they's accept what I 
think is intended as a friendly amendment and 
allow a further 24 hours consideration.

Public forum's essential to ICANN's transparency 
and accountability, at some point how questions 
and and comments are handled should be formalized 
(simple rules and procedures... not a bylaw 
amendment!) and I think the issues we've 
mentioned over the past few hours come in that 
category.

Best,

Adam



At 11:57 PM -0500 2/4/09, Mary Wong wrote:
>Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII
>Content-Description: HTML
>
>Adam and everyone,
>
>I am sorry that I did not realize the deadline 
>was 11.50 UTC, so we did not manage to get our 
>suggestions incorporated in time. Nonetheless, 
>both Bill Drake and I have volunteered to be on 
>any working group or other grouping that works, 
>within and for the GNSO, on further actions and 
>recommendations regarding public participation 
>in ICANN. As such, I will say that we will do 
>our utmost to relay - and incorporate - all of 
>each of your concerns and suggestions into the 
>process and outcome of this particular activity.
>
>Please continue to send your thoughts, 
>suggestions and concerns to me, Bill and/or the 
>list. We very much appreciate the feedback, and 
>would very much like to be able to present as 
>representative and as full a panoply of 
>possibilities as we can muster.
>
>Best regards,
>Mary
>
>Mary W S Wong
>Professor of Law
>Franklin Pierce Law Center
>Two White Street
>Concord, NH 03301
>USA
>Email: <mailto:mwong at piercelaw.edu>mwong at piercelaw.edu
>Phone: 1-603-513-5143
>Webpage: 
><http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php>http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php
>Selected writings available on the Social 
>Science Research Network (SSRN) at: 
><http://ssrn.com/author=437584>http://ssrn.com/author=437584
>
>
>>>>  Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> 2/4/2009 11:45 PM >>>
>>Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII
>>Content-Description: HTML
>>
>>In addition to Adam's suggestion (extract
>>below), how would folks feel about adding
>>something along the lines of "It is also
>>important to bear in mind that these
>>communications should complement, and not
>>substitute for, direct public engagement with
>>the ICANN Board."
>>
>>Please note that comments can be submitted only
>>up till 11.59 tonight (I am assuming this is
>>either PST or EST - can anyone confirm it?)
>>
>
>
>23:59 UTC.
>
>Bill's email said:
>
>At 11:37 AM +0100 2/4/09, William Drake wrote:
>>
>>Do NCUC people have any comments on the attached
>>letter?  if so they're due by 23:59 UTC today.
>>I'll be offline traveling so if yes please send
>>to Carlos or Mary.
>>
>>BD
>>
>
>I hope someone submitted the changes (now about 5 hours beyond the deadline.)
>
>Adam
>
>
>
>
>>Cheers
>>Mary
>>
>>Mary W S Wong
>>Professor of Law
>>Franklin Pierce Law Center
>>Two White Street
>>Concord, NH 03301
>>USA
>>Email: <mailto:mwong at piercelaw.edu>mwong at piercelaw.edu
>>Phone: 1-603-513-5143
>>Webpage:
>><<http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php>http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php><http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php>http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php
>>Selected writings available on the Social
>>Science Research Network (SSRN) at:
>><<http://ssrn.com/author=437584>http://ssrn.com/author=437584><http://ssrn.com/author=437584>http://ssrn.com/author=437584
>>
>>
>>>>>   Adam Peake <ajp at GLOCOM.AC.JP> 2/4/2009 11:57 AM >>>
>>Important that the person asking has the
>>opportunity to agree to having their question
>>taken in that way.
>>
>>Perhaps add a sentence so the relevant part reads:
>>
>>It is also noted that ICANN staff, under
>>direction of the Chairman, allowed for questions
>>to be posted after the Meeting and subsequently
>>answered by appropriate staff. The GNSO Council
>>applauds this innovation particularly with the
>  >staff providing responses to direct questions.
>>*However, questions should only be deferred in
>>this way with the agreement of the person asking
>>the question during the open forum.*
>>
>>Make sense?
>>
>>Adam